Watermelons: Delingpole on Climate

Journalist & blogger James Delingpole

The infuriating thing about James Delingpole is not that he claims, with his usual self-deprecating charm, to be “the journalist who is always right about everything”, but that, for the most part, he really is always right about everything.

I’ve just been reading his new book on climate, “Watermelons”, and I’m hugely impressed.  It is so many things at once — a polemic, an analysis, an enormously valuable, well-researched and referenced resource, inspiring to those of us committed to opposing climate alarmism, convincing for those still in doubt, a horrid shock to the Warmists, and an awful warning of the economic damage we’re doing to the West in general and the UK in particular if we go on down the Chris Huhne/Lib-Dem/Coalition’s primrose path to perdition.

It’s more than that.  It’s also a stonkingly good read.  The kind of book you’d be glad you took on holiday with you, instead of the usual airport block-buster.  It’s right up there with Mark Steyn and P.J. O’Rourke.  In places it’s laugh-out-loud funny.  Delingpole has a neat way of anticipating reader reaction, and addressing it head-on, so that it feels more like a conversation than a lecture.

Delingpole takes head-on the often-repeated claim that climate sceptics are driven simply by money from “big oil” and the fossil fuel industry.  As a campaigner against climate alarmism myself, I can tell you from personal experience that no one has ever offered me any kind of bung, nor financial support of any kind.  But Delingpole reviews the data, and shows that even on very conservative estimates, the money behind the Warmists — from the UN, the EU, national governments, local authorities, NGOs, think-tanks, charities and foundations, green taxes, emissions trading schemes — exceeds the funding of the sceptics by at least a thousand times.

The central idea of the book is not original, and the “Watermelon” idea has been around for some time.  Like watermelons, environmental activists and eco-freaks are green on the outside, but red on the inside.  Until the fall of Communism, Marxist philosophy provided the backbone and the fig-leaf (to mix metaphors) for a generalised hatred of growth, progress, wealth, prosperity, success, business and industry — in short, capitalism.  With the prop of Marxism effectively kicked away by the collapse of the USSR, the capitalism-haters needed a new hook to hang their hats on, and right on cue, along came environmentalism, which provided a wholly different ground for the same prejudices (ironic, when you think that the old industries of the USSR were about the dirtiest, most polluting in the history of the world).

It’s not true, of course, that all environmental campaigners are former Trots.  But many are.  Who leads the Green group in the European parliament?  None other than Daniel Cohn-Bendit MEP, the Franco-German politician who was a student leader during the Paris riots of 1968.  He may be green today, but then he was celebrated as “Dany (sic) le Rouge”.

Delingpole, however, presents the Watermelon idea with a cogency, and an urgency, which has rarely been bettered.  In doing so, he deals with the science, the politics, and the lies and prevarications.  His chapter on ClimateGate is an eye-opener even for those of us who lived with it and through it.  It reminded me just how angry we ought to be with those publicly-funded “scientists” at the UEA/CRU, who used and abused science to support their preconceptions rather than to seek the truth.

In doing so, they have set in train a self-perpetuating myth that is parasitising our economy and our public life.  Governments are pouring huge sums of money into climate mitigation efforts which are probably unnecessary, certainly ineffectual, and wholly unaffordable.  Current energy policies driven by Huhne, and Brussels, are driving up energy costs, forcing millions of families into fuel poverty, and threatening major disruptions to our electricity supplies by the end of this decade.  At the same time, they are driving energy-intensive industries abroad, reducing competitiveness, disincentivising inward investment, and devastating our growth prospects and our employment levels, just as we face the most serious economic challenges for generations, including recession, and the eclipse of the West by the BRICS.

“Watermelons” is, as I have already remarked, many things, including a very good read indeed.  But its real importance is as a wake-up call.  We are on a road to economic disaster, driven by the Great Global Warming Myth.  Other countries around the world are steadily distancing themselves from the lunacy.  The longer we leave it before we face reality, the worse our competitive situation will become, as will the debt we leave to our grandchildren.  Please do read this book, and heed its message.

“Watermelons” by James Delingpole, published by Biteback Publishing www.bitebackpublishing.com at £14:99.  Worth every penny.  ISBN 978-1-84954-217-3

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Watermelons: Delingpole on Climate

  1. Thank you for that excellent advice. You’ve sold it to me!

  2. Jon says:

    I might read it as a comedy.

    Leaving aside some of the scientific issues for the moment, the utterly simplistic and silly labelling of ‘environmental activists’ as watermelons, especially with the zeal of your terms such as ‘eco-freaks is crass. And wrong. I know you will say in your defence that you wrote :”It’s not true, of course, that all environmental campaigners are former Trots. But many are. ”

    But you are happy to go ahead with crass reductionism.

    What of the CPRE and National Trust? the Latter spearheaded by that well known lefty-liberal Simon Jenkins?! Both of these organisations have members who fall into the ‘environmental’ camp, but also very strongly in the ‘blue’ of conservatism. In fact, both are often preservative in tone, not just conservative, and against any kind of development.

    Then there are ‘Green’ centrists, and normal people who just believe in science and not having an undue or unsustainable impact upon the world. And uif you read the words of Dellingpole’s followers and peers, then actually, ‘eco-freaks’ and their champions are on the far-right, and it;s an elaborate scam to impose carbon-trading and other monetary devices to take money from the middle-classes and deliver it to a wealthy elite, as well as their companies taking huge subsidies.

    You see, I get confused when I argue about climate change, and environmental issues, because each time, opponents make it political, and they are sure it is definitely a certain categorisation, but they can’t agree which one it is. Rather perplexing.

    As for ClimateGate, what was there in the end other than a few emails showing scientists can be human? There was no fixing of data. The ‘trick’ was just that tree-based proxies for temperature diverged from actual measurements recorded by thermometers during the middle of the twentieth century.

    • Thanks Jon. I am using the term “Watermelons”, as Delingpole is, specifically about Warmists. I am not for a moment referring to the NT (of which I am a life member, and whose work I support, apart from their improper ban on stag hunting on Dartmoor). A key point in the debate is the difference between those really concerned about the environment (which in my experience includes most climate-sceptics) and the abuse of environmental ideas perpetrated by the Warmists.

      You can surely not deny the close parallels between the anti-business, anti-prosperity, anti-growth culture of climate zealots, and the exact same attitudes formerly espoused by Marxists.

      And just read Delingpole’s Chapter on ClimateGate. Far from “just being human”, these “scientists” have abandoned the scientific method. They are not following the evidence wherever it leads. They are using every dishonest device to beat the data into submission so that it fits their own pre-conceived narrative.

    • fenbeagleblog says:

      Jon
      I think you probably need to read the book first, and then criticise anything that the book does say (if you wish). Rather than criticise what it does not say ….. (And it does contain some humour too.)

  3. David W. says:

    I look forward to reading Delingpole’s book.

    MP Helmer,
    my first job following college included industrial base producibility analysis, just as the Soviet communist system was collapsing. In other words, the crisis structure that concentrated the West’s political and, to a limited extent financial, foci was suddenly waning. But what were all the Cold War dinosaurs and hawks going to do to profit in its absence?

    Corporate welfare dons many hats. For decades one hat was the Cold War, and for generations another has been LBJ’s “Great Society”. G.H.W. Bush was determined to be “The Environmental President”, and he proved it with legislation invigorating the US EPA’s power to make rules without consent. Those rules benefit many of the same corporations that profited from the Cold War. Now America is facing a number of crisis structures bent to socialize every aspect of our lives. Meanwhile welfare corporations profit by force.

    The global warming context never had anything to do with the climate. It’s all about using law to determine who makes money (the establishment) and who pays (you and me). It’s astounding the number of suckers who still buy the Albert Gore’s fraud.

    • An interesting analysis. I would agree that many corporations are now profiting hugely from climate mitigation policies. And I agree that most climate policy is regressive — it raises costs for (e.g.) pensioners, and other households, while rewarding corporations and carbon traders. But I don’t see it as a corporate conspiracy. To start with, “Big Oil” did indeed pull the other way, against AGW — until they realised that they could make money out of Greenism.

      • David W. says:

        MP Helmer, you are absolutely correct about the great majority of corporations — they survive responding to law. But consider General Electric with regards to “green” energy, military, healthcare and tell me there’s no “conspiracy”. Especially in light of Jeffery Immelt’s presence in the White House, the company has to be vested in the current administrations machinations. General Electric is a convenient stakeholder in Obamacare. How did that happen?

        Also, consider Albert Gore’s efforts to;
        1. Create the perception of climate crisis.
        2. Proffer convenient solutions.
        3. Lobby the solutions into law.
        4. Profit by force.

        Gore has doubtlessly conspired to shape and profit from the climate change agenda since the late 1980s. It would be naive to believe others aren’t.

  4. JH says:

    I can’t wait to read it!

    I have never bought into the Global Warming Hoax. It seems like it was too broad to be thought of as one thing. Their are too many variables to simplify. I see it as a way to control people and their thoughts. So, many brainwashed. And to think if were actually so (Global Warming), it would lost anyways. To many people and industry to control. Half of the population would have to be eliminated to counter such massive emissions. Luckily for us carbon does not drive temperature.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s